Constraint satisfaction tractability from semi-lattice operations on infinite sets

A famous result by Jeavons, Cohen, and Gyssens shows that every Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) where the constraints are preserved by a semi-lattice operation can be solved in polynomial time. This is one of the basic facts for the so-called universal algebraic approach to a systematic theory of tractability and hardness in finite domain constraint satisfaction. Not surprisingly, the theorem of Jeavons et al. fails for arbitrary infinite domain CSPs. Many CSPs of practical interest, though, and in particular those CSPs that are motivated by qualitative reasoning calculi from artificial intelligence, can be formulated with constraint languages that are rather well-behaved from a model-theoretic point of view. In particular, the automorphism group of these constraint languages tends to be large in the sense that the number of orbits of n-subsets of the automorphism group is bounded by some function in n. In this article we present a generalization of the theorem by Jeavons et al. to infinite domain CSPs where the number of orbits of n-subsets grows subexponentially in n, and prove that preservation under a semi-lattice operation for such CSPs implies polynomial-time tractability. Unlike the result of Jeavons et al., this includes CSPs that cannot be solved by Datalog.

[1]  Hubie Chen,et al.  Arc consistency and friends , 2011, J. Log. Comput..

[2]  Wilfrid Hodges,et al.  A Shorter Model Theory , 1997 .

[3]  Libor Barto,et al.  New Conditions for Taylor Varieties and CSP , 2010, 2010 25th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[4]  Jaroslav Nesetril,et al.  Constraint Satisfaction with Countable Homogeneous Templates , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Tomás Feder,et al.  The Computational Structure of Monotone Monadic SNP and Constraint Satisfaction: A Study through Datalog and Group Theory , 1999, SIAM J. Comput..

[6]  Peter J. Cameron,et al.  Permutation Groups: Frontmatter , 1999 .

[7]  Roman Barták,et al.  Constraint Processing , 2009, Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence.

[8]  Justin Pearson,et al.  Closure Functions and Width 1 Problems , 1999, CP.

[9]  Barnaby Martin,et al.  On the Scope of the Universal-Algebraic Approach to Constraint Satisfaction , 2010, 2010 25th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[10]  P. Cameron,et al.  Oligomorphic permutation groups , 1990 .

[11]  Manuel Bodirsky,et al.  The complexity of temporal constraint satisfaction problems , 2008, STOC.

[12]  Michael Pinsker,et al.  All reducts of the random graph are model-complete , 2009 .

[13]  P. Cameron,et al.  PERMUTATION GROUPS , 2019, Group Theory for Physicists.

[14]  Peter Jeavons,et al.  Classifying the Complexity of Constraints Using Finite Algebras , 2005, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  B. Larose,et al.  Finite posets and topological spaces in locally finite varieties , 2005 .

[16]  Michael Pinsker,et al.  Minimal functions on the random graph , 2010 .

[17]  H. D. Macpherson Orbits of Infinite Permutation Groups , 1985 .

[18]  P. Cameron Transitivity of permutation groups on unordered sets , 1976 .

[19]  Su Gao Invariant Descriptive Set Theory , 2008 .

[20]  Marc Gyssens,et al.  Closure properties of constraints , 1997, JACM.

[21]  Alistair H. Lachlan Structures coordinatized by indiscernible sets , 1987, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[22]  Manuel Bodirsky,et al.  A fast algorithm and datalog inexpressibility for temporal reasoning , 2010, TOCL.

[23]  Michael Pinsker,et al.  The reducts of equality up to primitive positive interdefinability , 2010, J. Symb. Log..

[24]  Manuel Bodirsky Cores of Countably Categorical Structures , 2007, Log. Methods Comput. Sci..